Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Administrator of Moroka and Others v Kubheka and Another (A13/2020; A14/2020) [2024] ZAMPMHC 26 (23 April 2024)
The High Court set aside a punitive costs and fee-forfeiture order made without hearing the affected legal practitioners, finding procedural unfairness.
Ecenter Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v First National Bank Ltd and Another (28904/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 318 (2 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel release of blocked bank funds, holding the applicants should have pursued the statutory review route.
Lund v S and Others (2023-093107) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1120; 2025 (1) SACR 480 (GJ) (6 October 2023)
The High Court referred a rescission application to Full Court after an order setting aside bail pending appeal. The applicant’s detention remained suspended meanwhile.
Mokhele and Another v South African Legal Practice Council (5511/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 94 (27 March 2023)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against an interim suspension order against attorney Lebohang Michael Mokhele and his firm, finding no appealable order or reasonable prospects of success.
South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021) [2022] ZASCA 158 (21 November 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in granting a supervisory order without affording the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Minister of Health a hearing, despite their explicit opposition and request for oral argument. The order was not sought by any party, was not an issue in the pleadings, and was granted in the absence of any evidence to justify its necessity. The court emphasized that judicial power is limited by law and the Constitution, and that parties must be heard before orders affecting them are made. The grant of the supervisory order…
Source excerpt
S v Dlamini (R39/2022) [2022] ZAKZPHC 52 (12 September 2022)
The High Court set aside a conviction for failure to attend court after finding the accused was denied a fair hearing and opportunity to explain his absence.
Mohale v Road Accident Fund (7257/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 44 (12 August 2022)
The court found that, due to mutually destructive versions presented by two officers of the court regarding Dr Kumbirai's belief in oath-taking, it was necessary to call Dr Kumbirai to clarify the matter. For fairness and to avoid injustice, advocate Mojamabu and his instructing attorneys were afforded the opportunity to be present, cross-examine Dr Kumbirai, and present any relevant evidence. The proceedings in case 6476/2018, though finalised, remained relevant as the issue of Dr Kumbirai's oath-taking originated there and could result in adverse findings against legal practitioners. The co…
Source excerpt
Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v SAMWU obo Tolom and Others (PR190/20) [2022] ZALCPE 3 (8 February 2022)
The court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by failing to afford the applicant a hearing before deciding the condonation application, in breach of rule 31 of the Bargaining Council's rules. The right to be heard was retained under clause 7.1 of circular 7, which did not amend the requirement for a hearing, but only prohibited hearings in open venues and allowed for video conferencing. The arbitrator further erred by considering a replying affidavit filed out of time without condonation, contrary to the rules. These procedural defects prejudiced the applicant and constit…
Source excerpt
Classic Arms (Pty) Limited Dealer Code 2988 and Another v Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture and Others (13517/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 60 (2 February 2022)
SAHRA’s temporary suspension of firearm heritage export permits was found procedurally unfair under PAJA. The court ordered SAHRA to pay costs.
Chithi and Others; In re: Luhlwini Mchunu Community v Hancock and Others (423/2020) [2021] ZASCA 123 (23 September 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Land Claims Court erred in imposing a punitive costs order depriving the applicants of their fees without affording them a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This procedural breach alone vitiated the costs order. The applicants were not given a separate hearing or meaningful opportunity to make submissions regarding the threatened deprivation of fees, contrary to established principles of procedural fairness and statutory requirements. The court found no evidence that the applicants' conduct was vexatious or persistent as contemplated by the Vexatiou…
Source excerpt
Explore more
